1 2026:CGHC:2719 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 585 of 2022 1. Smt. Amrika Bai Dhruv W/o Late Toran Dhruv, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Bodki, Post- Belar, Police Station - Rajim, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 2. Manisha Dhruv D/o Late Toran Dhruv, Aged About 14 Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Amrika Bai Dhruv R/o Village - Bodki, Post- Belar, Police Station - Rajim, District - Gariyaband 3. Minor Neena Dhruv, D/o Late Toran Dhruv, Aged About 12 Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Amrika Bai Dhruv R/o Village - Bodki, Post- Belar, Police Station - Rajim, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 4. Minor Narendra Dhruv, S/o Late Toran Dhruv Aged About 10 Years Minor On Behalf Of Through Their Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Amrika Bai Dhruv R/o Village - Bodki, Post- Belar, Police Station - Rajim, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 5. Johat Ram Dhruv S/o Late Udesingh Dhruv, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Bodki, Post- Belar, Police Station - Rajim, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 6. Smt. Hathryarin Dhruv W/o Johat Ram Dhruv Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Bodki, Post- Belar, Police Station - Rajim, District - Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant(s) versus 1. Girdhar Dhruv S/o Hemlal Dhruv, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village - Bodki, Post- Belar, Police Station - Rajim, District - Gariyaband (Driver Of Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. Cg/04/dm/6553) Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.01.16 16:54:40 +0530 2 2. Tomlesh Kumar Diwan S/o Late Fataturam Diwan, R/o Village - Bodki, Post- Belar, Police Station - Rajim, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ( Registered Owner Of Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. Cg/04/dm/6553) 3. The Branch Manager, The Tata - Aig Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, Jail Road, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Vehicle Tractor Bearing Registration No. Cg/04/dm/6553) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 16-1-2026 1) Heard on I.A. No. 1/2022, an application for condonation of delay of 1463 days in filing the appeal. 2) The appellants/ claimants have filed this appeal assailing the award dated 1.2.2016 passed in Claim Case No. 16/2023 by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband (C.G.) whereby compensation of Rs. 2,78,300/- has been awarded with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. 3) Learned counsel for the appellants submits claimants are poor and uneducated villagers residing in a remote area. He further submits that claimants were facing financial restraint, therefore they could not prefer the appeal within limitation. He contends that claimants were under the impression that their local counsel had contacted the advocate appearing before High Court to prefer appeal and when they inquired about the status of appeal, they came to know that no appeal has been 3 filed on their behalf. He further contends that immediately thereafter, appeal was preferred on 19.4.2022. He prays to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal as same has been explained properly in the application. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would oppose. She submits that claimants have not explained the grounds for delay properly in the application and this appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. 5) Heard. 6) In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that claimants are poor persons residing in remote area but at the same time it is also stated that they were under impression that their local counsel had sent the brief to the advocate practicing before the High Court to prefer the appeal. In my opinion, the stand taken by the claimants is contradictory. In the entire application, the claimants have not mentioned a single date as to when they obtained the certified copy of award ; contacted their local counsel and when they approached the advocate appearing before the High Court to prefer appeal. 7) It seems that the appellants remained inactive for period of four years; failing to inquire about the status of their appeal which suggests a lack of diligence in pursuing their case. Given the substantial delay of 1463 days, the appellants have not provided sufficient justification for their inaction. 4 8) Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. & Others vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA)1 dealt with the object of the law of limitation. In para 10 & 11, the object and import of Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act were considered and it was observed thus:- “10. Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced herein-below: 3. Bar of limitation. - (1) Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. 11.Though Section 3 of the Act mentions about suit, appeal and application but since in this case we are concerned with appeal, we would hereinafter be mentioning about the appeal only in context with the limitation, it being barred by time, if at all, and if the delay in its filing is liable to be condoned.” 9) The Hon’ble Court referred to various judgments in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra) in paras 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, which are reproduced herein-below:- “19. In Maqbul Ahmad and Ors. vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh2 and Ors, it had been held that the court cannot grant an exemption from limitation on equitable consideration or on the ground of hardship. The court has time and again repeated that when mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone. 20. In this connection, a reference may be made to Brijesh Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Haryana 1. (2024) 4 SCR 241 ; 2024 SCCOnLine SC 513 2. AIR 1935 PC 85 5 and Ors3, wherein while observing, as above, this Court further laid down that if some person has obtained a relief approaching the court just or immediately when the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take the benefit of the same by approaching the court at a belated stage simply on the ground of parity, equity, sympathy and compassion. 21. In Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors4., where the High Court, despite unsatisfactory explanation for the delay of 3703 days, had allowed the applications for condonation of delay, this Court held that the High Court failed to exercise its discretion in a reasonable and objective manner. High Court should have exercised the discretion in a systematic and an informed manner. The liberal approach in considering sufficiency of cause for delay should not be allowed to override substantial law of limitation. The Court observed that the concepts such as ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice- oriented approach’ and ‘substantial justice’ cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. 22. It has also been settled vide State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani & Ors.5, that the merits of the case cannot be considered while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 23. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer6, this Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ large. It was also observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour as prescribed under the statute as the courts have no choice but to apply the law as it stands and they have no power to condone the delay on equitable grounds.” 3. 2014 4 SCALE 50 4. (2011) 4 SCC 363 5. AIR 2009 SC 1927 6. (2013) 14 SCC 81 6 10) In para 26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra) summarized the judgments passed in the above stated decisions and the same is reproduced herein-below:- “26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and 7 (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.” 11) In para 30, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that condonation of the delay merely for the reason that the claimants have been deprived of the interest for the delay without holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay is not a correct approach. Para 30 is reproduced herein-below:- “30. The aforesaid decisions would not cut any ice as imposition of conditions are not warranted when sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Secondly, delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on the facts of their own case. Condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of the legislative intent or the express provision of the statute. Condoning of the delay merely for the reason that the claimant have been deprived of the interest for the delay without holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay is not a correct approach, particularly when both the above decisions have been rendered in ignorance of the earlier pronouncement in the case of Basawaraj (supra).” 12) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra) further held that the phrases ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice- oriented approach’ and ‘cause for the advancement of substantial justice’ cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 8 13) Taking into consideration the facts discussed above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra), in the opinion of this Court, the appellants have not explained the delay properly, therefore the application for condonation of delay [I.A. No. 1/2022] is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 14) Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a